4 ms·
So we are in agreement. Anyways can mean different things, but it is better to face the (and I have -$100T NPV accounting) -$44T crisis earlier than later, what
by 3pt14159 15y ago
So we are in agreement. Anyways can mean different things, but it is better to face the (and I have -$100T NPV accounting) -$44T crisis earlier than later, what with the baby boomers still working. My only point is that at least this brought the looming debt problems to the forefront of Americans mind, albeit at a undesirable outcome. If this crisis had actually resulted in real cuts now and real tax increases now it would have softened the blow in the long term.
- btilly 15y agoIf this crisis had actually resulted in real cuts now and real tax increases now it would have softened the blow in the long term. I'm not positive that that is true, but that is what S&P thinks. The possibility to the contrary is that our economy is slowing again and we have more financial problems dragging us down. Real cuts and tax increases would slow it further. Reduced GDP growth increases our long-term fiscal problems. How exactly those factors would balance out against each other is a heavily debated problem in economics. (The two major political parties have sharply different opinions about the answer.) But while that can be debated, my belief is that either "kick the can without the political fight" or "grand bargain" would have been better for us than what we actually wound up with. And I think we're in agreement there.